Creation vs. Evolution

[tricoti]

Your obviously fake thread worked . Look at all those responses! 6,000 - 7,000 years old!!! Priceless.

 

[MikeFerrara]

And that about sums it all up doesn't it. Excellent post.

I don't think it sums it all up. His challenge is limited to competing theories based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Is that representative of any theory that might be considered "creationist"?

 

[MikeFerrara]

I agree. And yet creationists don't hold the opposite to be true - they (you included, based on past posts) expect science to conform to the obviously limited and simplistic description provided in the bible. When it doesn't, instead of accepting those results at face value, you instead go off on rants about how science is attacking religion, etc, etc, etc.

I don't think that's an accurate description of the position I've taken or what I've posted.

I have questioned quite a few things from red-shift to DNA evidence and the fossil record but I don't recall ever using the book of Genesis as my refernce point.

I think if you look back at my posts, you'll see that when I questioned the science I framed my discussion based on the science rather than the Bible.

 

[sheck33]

I don't think it sums it all up. His challenge is limited to competing theories based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Is that representative of any theory that might be considered "creationist"?

Warthaug said this:

'Until creationists can come up with an alternate theory that both explains all of the observation science has made to date about how life changes, and predicts future findings, creationism will always be treated as nothing more then an irrelevent piece of fundamentalist dogma. You can complain that its "naturalistic", "athiestic", or wahtever-istic you feel like, but at the end of the day your name-calling doesn't change the fact that it is the only theory out there which both predicts what we see in nature, and desacribes why we see it.

That is where the science is at - until creationism can do the same you're not even playing the same game.'

I personally think there is just nothing to debate until creationists come up with a theory/explanation as he described it above. Creationism and science wont be in the same playing field until that happens.

On a sidenote:

Is a god (or gods) needed to explain the evolving of the simplest of life forms all the way to us? The answer is no.

Is a god (or gods, if one why not more than one) needed to explain that life can arise from non life? The answer is no.

Is a god needed to explain the very existence of the universe? That depends.

If the universe always existed the answer is no.
If the universe came into existence at some point then the answer is maybe, god might have created it or we are in an infinite cycle of expanding and contracting universes, we'll never know.

I have however a very hard time believing that the Universe came from nothing, this violates an important physical law. And scientists don't claim this either as some creationists say.

I dont believe a god exists, and I couldnt care less if he/she/it did.

 

[Warthaug]

Gene duplication itself does not produce new genes, correct,

Usually we don't consider it a new gene until it varies in some way from the predecessor gene - either through a change in the protein it encodes, or a change in its expression level/pattern/tissue.

because 2 copies of the same piece of information does not increase the amount of information.

"Information" does not exist as a separate, quantifiable entity; therefore the question is moot. However, a gene duplication does represent an increase in the number of proteins encoded in the genome; so at a very basic level it does increase the amount of "information". It also provides you with something that you can modify, without loosing biological function; which gets over the problem with just making new alleles.

Also, as you stated above, multiple copies of genes tend to "screw" things up

Actually, I did not say that. I specifically said that the loss of a gene is rarely inherited, as the loss of an entire gene is often lethal. I made no comments what-so-ever as to the effect of "extra" copies.

Generally speaking, extra copies are tolerated well. After all, our bodies carefully regulate genes, and so extra copies just mean you turn down the total amount of gene expression (per gene), giving you a normal level of protein. The opposite also holds true - if you inherit a non-functioning protein from one parent, your body will upregulate the expression of the "good" gene from the other parent, thus allowing normal protein levels and normal function. That last phenomena is called "haplosufficiency".

The case I was referring to was when a gene is completely lost - as on you have 0 copies. Unless the gene is unneeded, or redundant with different genes, that's almost always lethal. After all, you cannot up or down regulate something that isn't there.

Extra copies, or half the normal number of copies, is rarely a problem.

And since we're also talking of bacteria, I should mention that they don't have 2 chromasomes, or parents (plural) for that matter, so things are a little difference. but none-the-less, they also closely regulate gene expression, and can usually deal with an extra copy (or two, or five) of a gene.

so the duplicated gene would have to have been deactivated so as to not mess with "dosage" problems. So we are back to mutations.

As pointed out above, this is incorrect. Our bodies have multiple ways of regulating genes and gene doseage - a range of transcription factors and histone regulatory elements carefully control the expression of most genes in our bodies. Too amny copies - no problem, just turn down the promotor for that gene to the point where the protein levels are normal again.

Bacteria are of no exception to that, except that they lack histones.

While deactivated, this duplicated gene must have been mutated.

No, there are lots of ways to inactivate genes without mutation; just a few examples:

1) Gene regulation. Use transcription factors to control when/where a gene is turned on, and how much of it is made
2) Gene silencing. Methylate the appropriate chunk of DNA to prevent gene expression. Methylation is reversible, and as such, so is the inativation of the gene.
3) Compact the heterochromatin. This makes the DNA inside inaccessable, and therefore inactivates any genes in the compacted area. Like all of the above, this too is reversable.
4) Epigenetics - use combinations of the above to "turn" off genes in a heritable fashion. The gene remains unmutated, and it can be turned back on.

There are several other ways, I'm just too lazy to go through them all.

It had to have been the deactivated gene because if the active gene were mutated the bacteria would have lost some original functionality, and we cannot have that now can we.

Sure we can. The loss of unneeded or redundant genes is evolutionarily favored. And, as mentioned above, you initial premise (that genes need to be mutated to be turned off, and that excess genes are an issue) is wrong, so the point is moot regardless.

Some beneficial by products of mutations have been observed, yes, like resistance, but not without a decrease in functionality elsewhere. So it's back to square one.

In this you are completely incorrect. Numerous examples of gene duplication, followed by divergence have been observed. These result in a net increase in fitness. I already gave one example of this.

These (as you state above) are not proven facts. B. subtillis was identified, with it's resistance already in place, in the 1800s, yes?

Its not that simple; the entire species doesn't gain resistance once one member evolves it; even today most strains of B. subtillis isolated in the wild is tetracycline resistant. Different populations of B. subtillis have gained resistance multiple times in the past. In one of the more recent cases (published in PNAS, 2001 I think) each and every one of the gene duplications and mutations that lead to resistance were mapped, and since is was a laboratory-derived strain, those changes were compared to the progenitor strain.

Similar studies have shown the same mechanism again and again - insect resistance to pesticides, evolution driven by predation, various cases of plant evolution, etc, etc, etc. The literature is filled with these examples.

I'd also point out that your assumption that any new biochemical function must come at the expense of another is also wrong. Once again, the literature is full of many examples where mutation of an existing biochemical pathway led to new biochemistry without affecting the old biochemical pathways. Nylon metabolism, PAI-1 mutations, most of the HIV-1 drug resistance mutations, and some forms of bacterial antibiotic resistance all came through evolving new alleles, and did so without a measurable decrease in fitness.

Therefore, we did not observe any gene duplication followed by mutation. We must assume that was the way it happened. That is not a fact.

Since it was observed directly, as it happened, there was no assumption. You really need to read more than your creationist propaganda - they rarely tell you everything that has been discovered.

So again, I'm fine with speciation. I'm fine with natural selection and genetic drift and the founder effect and sympatric speciation. I'm not sold on the hypothesis that gene duplication followed by mutation actually adds any novel structures or functionality.

Because you refuse to read the relevant scientific literature. Some starting points:

JW Drake et al, "Rates of Spontaneous Mutation",Genetics 148:1667-1686, April 1998

Franceschini G, Vecchio G, Gianfranceschi G, Magani D, Sirtori CR, "Apolipoprotein AIMilano. Accelerated binding and dissociation from lipids of a human apolipoprotein variant," J Biol Chem 1985 Dec 25;260(30):16321-5.

Nakajima, T. and Y. Kurihara. 1994. "Evolutionary changes of ecological traits of bacterial populations through predator-mediated competition." 1. Experimental analysis. Oikos. 71: 24-34.

Negoro et al, 1994. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas." Biodegradation 5:185-194

Pernthaler, J., T. Posch, K. Simek, J. Vrba, R. Amann and R. Psenner. 1997. "Contrasting bacterial strategies to coexist with a flagellate predator in an experimental microbial assemblage." Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 63: 596-601.

Begg, K. J. and W. D. Donachie. 1985. "Cell shape and division in Escherichia coli: Experiments with shape and division mutants." Journal of Bacteriology. 163: 615-622.

Cody JD, Reveles XT, Hale DE, Lehman D, Coon H, Leach RJ. Haplosufficiency of
the melancortin-4 receptor gene in individuals with deletions of 18q.
Hum Genet. 1999 Nov;105(5):424-7.
You'll notice most of those are rather old. The reason is simple - gene duplication, followed by mutation; the formation of new alleles; and the effect of duplication and/or mutation on fitness are old news. They are well characterized, and well understood.

And your sources have lied to you about what those studies have shown.

Bryan

 

[MikeFerrara]

On a sidenote:

Is a god (or gods) needed to explain the evolving of the simplest of life forms all the way to us? The answer is no.

You mean, you don't think so? There is a theory. Some or all of the basic mechanisms identified by that theory have been observed. The theory and observations seem to fit but I'm not sure we have observations or direct evidence that confirm the theory and observed mechanisms accounts for the complexity and diversity of all life that exists.

If it did, study could stop now.

Is a god (or gods, if one why not more than one) needed to explain that life can arise from non life? The answer is no.

Not demonstrated.

Is a god needed to explain the very existence of the universe? That depends.

Not demonstrated.

 

[coachpill]

[FONT=Bryan[/FONT]

First, you misread the part about mutation and deactivation. I'll leave that for you to re-read.

Nylon digesting bacteria also had decreased functionality in consuming other foods.

You are wrong on "information." Yes, protein amounts are increased, but proteins are the result of the information encoded within the DNA, and not the information themselves. Gene duplication does not, in fact, add information. Two copies of the same magazine do not increase any information...you simply have twice as must of the same information, hence your requirement for gene duplication followed by mutation

Mutations are degenerative in one way or another...mostly lethal. You (plural) must bet your bank account that some rare benign mutation will at some point become beneficial.

Bacteria resistance has been coupled with decreased functionality. Antibacterial agents actually come from bacteria as defensive mechanisms against nasty bacteria. Go figure, the bacteria themselves already have resistance to other bacteria as defense mechanisms.

HIV drug resistance is also coupled with decreased reproductive functionality somehow. When patients are removed from the drugs, the remaining wild type viruses vastly out compete the mutated ones which of course implies that the resistance was coupled with some sort of loss of information

Supposed gene duplications in yeast typically involve dividing functions between genes whereas the supposed ancestor gene does all of it, as opposed to creating new functions. Although this process is then touted as being evolution in action of course, the supposed gene duplication supposedly happened so long ago that it is speculation at best. DDC (duplication degeneration complementation) supposedly explains this fact. Supposedly each gene (the original and the duplicate) accumulate degenerative mutations that are complementary of the other gene. Interesting hypothesis. Obviously DDC is not sufficient for evolution because nothing new is occurring.

Obviously more mutations would be required to eventually produce some new functionality. Of course both genes and proteins have multiple functions and so a mutation that optimizes one function of the gene would more than likely harm at least one other function of the gene...therefore mutations would be deleterious and selected against.

Okee dokee then.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

 

[nereas]

5000+ views and 500+ posts ... this thread has gone a long way.

Last night on the National Geographic channel was a great documentary on astrophysical (astronomy) science. In comparing the development of this science with religion over the centuries, one physicist noted this:

"Religion tries to explain why everything happened, whereas science tries to explain how it happened; they have different purposes."

I thought this was a good reconciliatory explanation of the relationship between the two.

Ergo, people who try to use religion to explain how it happened and science to explain why it happened have their carts before the horse, so to speak!

 

[Rainer]

Ergo, people who try to use ... science to explain why it happened have their carts before the horse, so to speak!

I'm going out on a short limb here: you aren't a scientist, are you? I spend much of my day addressing "why" questions. I don't think my horse and cart are misplaced.

 

[coachpill]

Hey guys, this has been fun for sure, but quite taxing on my time. I have a lot to do and a short time to do it so I will be saying "adieu" for awhile. I know, I know, you will all be so sad, I'm sure!

Anyway, I loved the discussions, and might check back from time to time to see how things progress...if at all.

Again, thanks for everything; as it was all fun and stimulating! See ya!